Showing posts with label surrender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label surrender. Show all posts

Sunday, 11 March 2012

Book 1, Chapter 14: That Men Are Justly Punished For Being Obstinate In The Defence Of A Fort That Is Not In Reason To Be Defended


This essay, competing in length with an astonishingly long title, is about the foolishness of defending a fort that will clearly fall

'a man might look contemptuously at two guns, but only a madman would ignore 30 cannons'

Bravery has its virtues, but it also has its limits, and when those limits are crossed, one steps into ‘the territories of vice’. Having too much bravery, unless the holder of the bravery maintains the ideal limits (when one is near the limits, they are hard to discern), may easily cause one to run into stubbornness, foolishness, and arrogance. For this reason we have the custom of punishing men (even with death) who are stubborn enough, during wartime, to defend a place that is clearly unable to be held on to. If  this custom did not exist, every chicken-coop would try to resist invading armies.

- The Constable de Montmorenci, after laying siege to Pavia (in Italy), was crossing the river Ticino to go back to his quarters when he was stopped by a tower at the end of the bridge, whose inhabitants, insistent on defending themselves, picked a fight. The constable hanged every man he found within. I have several other examples of similar occurrences.

As much as the strengths and the weaknesses of a fortress are measured by the size and power of the forces that attack it (a man might look contemptuously at two guns, but only a madman would ignore 30 cannons), the greatness of the invading prince and the respect accorded to him are also put into the balance. There is a danger, in fact, that too much emphasis will be laid upon this secondary factor, and a man may think himself so high and powerful that he cannot imagine any place shutting its gates to him. He attacks everyone who opposes him, while his luck lasts. We see this clearly in the fierce and haughty calls-to-war made by the Oriental princes and their successors. And in that part of the world where the Portuguese defeated the Indians, they found that some states had the inviolable and universal law that anyone defeated in the presence of the king or his lieutenant would not be saved, by either ransom (prisoner exchange etc) or mercy. Therefore it was important, above all, to avoid falling into the hands of an enemy who was also a judge, and who was victorious, and armed.  

Friday, 9 March 2012

Book 1, Chapter 12: Of Constancy


How one reacts to surprise, particularly to negative surprise, is important. Montaigne urges a state of constancy, where one does not get overly moved by every misfortune that happens to befall


It is natural to ‘tremble at the terrible noise of thunder ... and be affrightened even to paleness and convulsion’ but one’s judgment should stay sound, and one’s reason should not be shaken, and one should not consent to his fright or discomposure


The idea of constancy and resolution implies that we should not hesitate to use all ‘decent and honest’ means to secure ourselves from harm, and any harmful incidents that do occur, and that we are unable to avoid, we should face with bravery. It does not mean that we should be so ‘brave’ as to not secure ourselves from inconvenience, or that we should show no fear of misfortune occurring. We should not condemn any action that we use to defend ourselves, no matter how irregular or ungraceful it may be.

Several countries use the strategy of retreat in war, to good effect, and their backs have proven to be more dangerous to their enemies than their faces. Socrates, when told by Laches that bravery means standing firm in the face of an enemy, laughed and responded, would it be considered cowardly, if one were to win by giving ground to their enemy? Homer also encourages ‘the science of flight’.

- The Lacedoemonians (an area in ancient Greece) were a nation usually stubborn in maintaining their ground. In the battle of Plataea however, they found themselves unable to break up the strong Persian army, and decided to disperse and retire. The Persians, imagining that they fled, dispersed in turn and the Lacedoemonians’s were able to gain victory through this strategy.

When an army is in the line of fire – something that happens quite often in war – it is considered bad for the soldier to leave his post. But considering the violence and fast-paced nature of that moment in the trenches, in the middle of enemy attack, abandoning one’s post, or ducking, or stepping aside, or any similar act of fear, is considered inevitable, and many have been laughed at by their fellow soldiers for doing just this.

And yet, many have saved their lives from a simple ducking or moving aside. The Marquis was almost hit by a shotgun once, and he slipped aside, and if he had not, he would have certainly died. Similarly the Duke of Urbino saw a gunman shoot a canon that was pointed directly at him, and he ducked. Otherwise, the shot would have hit him in the chest. Honestly speaking, I do not think these evasions are pre-meditated. How can one make a judgment when something so sudden occurs? In fact, it is easier to believe that fortune would favour these men’s apprehension. In other words, just to perceive and sense the danger would take them so long, that it would be too late to actually act. Personally, I cannot endure the sound of sudden gunshots, and I have observed braver men than I feel the same way.  

The Stoics did not pretend that philosophers need to be immune to surprise.

 (The Stoics are members of the ancient Greek school of philosophy that believed virtue was based on knowledge, and that we should live in harmony with nature, and bear its hardships with endurance and strength)

 It is natural to ‘tremble at the terrible noise of thunder, or the sudden clatter of some falling ruin, and be affrightened even to paleness and convulsion’. BUT one’s judgment should stay sound, and one’s reason should not be shaken, and one should not consent to his fright or discomposure. The first reaction is the same, whether one is a philosopher or not, but the second reaction is quite different. For the non-philosopher, the surprise will penetrate his ‘seat of reason, infecting and corrupting it, so that he judges according to his fear’ and changes his behaviour accordingly. The wise Stoic, on the other hand, will follow this advice of Virgil, from the Aeneid:

 ‘Though tears flow, the mind remains unmoved’

The Aristotelian philosopher Virgil does not dismiss the worries of the mind, but he moderates them.   

Saturday, 3 March 2012

Book 1, Chapter 6: That The Hour Of Parley Dangerous


Montaigne continues to wonder about what happens when the enemy offers to negotiate, and whether one can use all means necessary to win a fight. 

Not far from where I live, people were driven out. They complained of treachery because during a ‘treaty of accommodation’ (a truce-signing) they were attacked by surprise. In another age, this would have been considered foul play, but these days, warfare is changing, and we cannot have any faith in the enemy’s proposal of a truce until the treaty is signed and sealed. And even then, one can’t be completely certain. How can we trust that a man will keep his promise when we surrender? That the soldiers ‘in the heat of blood’, when given permission to enter, will not take advantage?

- A Roman general attempted and failed to capture the city of Phocaea. He was impressed by the bravery of the defending army and declared then that he would visit them as friends. He gave assurance that there would be no hostility, and brought his army with him for the visit, in a ceremonial gesture. Once within, however, he was unable to restrain his army. Out of greed and revenge they ‘trampled both his authority and all military discipline’ and ruined a big part of the city.

- Cleomenes, another emperor, believed that men could behave however they liked during war. On the third night of a seven-day truce that he had signed with the city of Argos, he attacked while all were asleep. He alleged that there had been no mention of night-time in the agreement. But the gods punished him.

Such treachery occurs again and again in time of war, so it seems that Cicero’s advice just does not apply in such times: ‘No one should prey upon another’s folly’. No, instead, perhaps they follow Ariosto, who says, ‘Victory is ever worthy of praise, whether obtained by valour or wisdom’.

The philosopher Chrysippus held a different view, a view with which I agree. He said that those who run a race should employ all the force they have in what they do, so they should run as fast as they can, but ‘it is by no means fair in them to lay any hand upon their adversary to stop him, nor to set a leg before him to throw him down.’

Yet more generous is the response Alexander gave when he was being persuaded to take advantage of the night’s darkness to attack. He said, ‘it is not for such a man as I am to steal a victory.’

I end with this quote by Quint. Curt: ‘I had rather complain of ill fortune than be ashamed of victory’

Friday, 2 March 2012

Book 1, Chapter 5: Whether The Governor Of A Place Besieged Ought Himself To Go Out To Parley


In this essay, Montaigne talks about fighting dirty, and ponders over whether deceit is legitimate when one is at war. Most importantly, he asks whether we should trust the enemy who seems to want to negotiate.

A Roman king, looking to buy time, offered the possibility of a truce to the king of Macedon. Then, taking advantage of the lull, he fortified his troops and attacked. The elder senators disapproved; they felt battles should be won through bravery, not ‘artifice, surprises, and night-encounters; neither by pretended flight’, and that war should be proclaimed, and even the time and place of battle announced. These Roman ideas are very different from the Greican or Punic ones, where a victory does not lose any glory if it is won by fraud rather than force. The Roman senators had probably not heard the words of Aeneid, when he said, ‘What matters whether by valour or by strategm we overcome the enemy’

- The Achaians hated double-dealing, and thought war should be won with ‘good faith and dignity’; Cicero, echoes this sentiment, saying, ‘Whether you or I shall rule, or what shall happen, let us determine by valour.’

- In Ternate (‘amongst those nations which we so broadly call barbarians’) there is a custom never to commence war without forewarning. Then, they declare in advance the number of men in their army, their ammunition, and their intentions. Now, this being done, if their enemies do not ‘yield and come to an agreement’, they consider it lawful to use all means necessary to conquer.

-The ancient Florentines were so careful not to gain unfair advantage that they always gave a month’s notice before an attack.

We are ‘not so scrupulous in this affair.’ The honour of the war goes to whoever wins. Lysander says, ‘Where the lion’s skin is too short, we must eke it out with a bit from that of a fox.’ Thus, we are wary of surprise attacks, and feel that the commander must be circumspect if any kinds of offers of accommodations or truces are made. Thus, the governor of a place, should not go out to negotiate in times of siege. Or if he does, he should in such a way that ‘the safety and advantage should be on his side’. An example:

- Our Count Guido, went out to negotiate, but stayed so near his fort that when disorder erupted, he found himself in the stronger position.

Sometimes, of course, there are benefits to going out to negotiate. If one knows, for example, that they are on the verge of certain defeat, it makes sense to compromise.   

I like to have trust in others, but in the situation where I were asked to negotiate, I would be hesitant, mainly because it may be construed that I have done so out of despair or a lack of courage rather than voluntarily, out of confidence and with faith in the person wishing to negotiate.


Monday, 27 February 2012

Book 1, Chapter 1: That Men By Various Means Arrive At The Same End


In this essay, Montaigne talks about two different ways in which people react when someone whom they have angered in the past now has the upper hand. 

When we have angered someone, and then we find them 'in possession of the power of revenge', we usually act all nice and meek so that the indignant person feels sorry for us.

This is an option.

There is also another - one of 'bravery, constancy, resolution' . It is sort of the opposite of the first, but sometimes has the same effect. Lets compare, and discuss the pros and cons of each one

Quickly, some stories that may interest you:
- Prince Edward was mad at some people (called the Limousins). He decided to attack. He wasn't moved at all by the crying women and children, or the people begging for mercy. but he was so impressed by three french guys that were willing to stand up to his whole army that he changed his mind and didn't attack. Another prince also did something similar.
- Emperor Conrad attacked Bavaria, and proclaimed that the women could leave without any 'violation to their honour' and they could take with them as much as they could carry, on foot. The women came out of their houses with their husbands and children on their shoulders. The emperor was well impressed.

Now, back to the matter at hand.
Personally, 'I would sooner surrender my anger to compassion than to esteem'. I'm a softy, and so if it's me you're worried about - best be submissive.
BUT
Some consider pity a weakness. They consider it 'effiminate' to be all tender and compassionate. They want to act with 'obstinate and masculine courage'.
HOWEVER
Bravery could also fail. The risks are obvious. If you're arrogant and cocky, you could well be punished.

It's hard to say. Man 'is a marvellous vain, fickle, and unstable subject, and on whom it is very hard to form any certain and uniform judgement'

Allow me to illustrate this fickle nature of man with another example
- Pompey pardoned the whole city of Mamertines because of one man, Zeno, who took everyone's blame, and offered to be punished for all. Yet, another man in the town of Latium offered the same to Sylla, but obtained nothing.

Now one last story to finish:

Alexander, who is very brave, entered Gaza. He was faced with the commander there, Betis, who was badly wounded, but remained proud, fierce, disdainful. Alexander was enraged that the man showed no humility. He killed him. Now, maybe this was because Alexander himself was so brave, that he found bravery to be natural and was unable to admire it in others. Or maybe he couldn't bear anyone but him being brave. Or maybe he was just really angry. I cannot say for sure, but the violent massacre that occurred that day was certainly pitiless.